People Tend To Follow The Advice Of Experts Over Their Own Common Sense

from the rational-behavior dept

Just as yet another new startup is launching, designed to give individuals "expert" decision making advice, reader ChurchHatesTucker points us to a new study that notes that people all too often stop thinking after being given "expert" advice -- even if that advice is bad. While the folks behind the study use this as another crack to make fun of economists who believe in rational behavior, I'm not sure they're right. What's more likely is that individuals are still acting rationally. It's just that they believe that the "experts" really do have more information/knowledge/wisdom about a certain topic -- and thus they trust it over their own info. That's still quite rational. The real question should be just how often the "experts" give really bad advice. The problem with the study in question was that the expert was giving bad advice that he wouldn't normally give, making much of the actual experiment kind of meaningless. This sort of thing really is only a problem if the experts frequently give bad advice.

Still, this probably isn't too surprising. We've seen over time that people tend to rely on any sort of "expert" input, even if it's from a computer (such as driving off a cliff thanks to GPS or believing a financial model that suggests the likelihood of massive subprime mortgage defaults is almost non-existent). It's not so much about going against common sense. It's just that we tend to believe the "authority" over common sense, because we know we don't have all the info that we need in many cases -- so, we assume (often reasonably) that the authority or expert is better prepared to direct us than our own common sense.

Silence the bleating of sheep

Indeed that is the problem - accepting symbols of authority for truth. On many levels you're witnessing the symptoms of mass epidemic dependency. Take me for example; thinking they were your site's links, I inadvertantly clicked on some of the Google ads in this blog. I hope you can accept my apology.
John

shades of Milgram

Is this really that far apart from the Milgram experiments? In that case, the researcher was measuring the people's trust/ obedience to authority figures to the point where it crossed their sense of ethics and right and wrong.

Interestingly, afterwards, while upset, most were happy to have taken part in the experiment as it pointed out to them how trusting they were of authority.

The point is, everyone says 'oh, i would never do that', but as has been pointed out by Milgram, Zimbardo and just about every war in history, we are very poor judges of our own character and what we are willing to do to tow the line.

How to recognise the experts

The problem, in many cases, is that people will take people's claims to expertise at face value. They might lack self-esteem, or maybe are trained to believe what they're told. This certainly makes it easy for door-to-door salespersons, religious leaders and politicians, but makes people more vulnerable. They even believe televangelists!! People need a dose of skepticism.

Experts

Thinking should never be put on hold for any reason. A classic thought is the old saw about getting a second opinion from another doctor. This example should tell the patient something about medical advise in general.

Personally, I consider the real expert to be the sum of all experts. There is no one person with all the answers in every situation. Therefore, it is always best to get multiple expert opinions and never stop thinking/learning.

Good things to remember in all cases is that experts are only real people in disguise and the definition of an expert is someone who knows one more fact than you!

WE are just all Lazy...

If experts give bad advise, then they probably are not really experts.

Listening to someone who really knows a topic is a good idea, but that doesn't mean they are always right. We know what we know when we know it, not before. There is no way getting around it.

Was subprime loaning a bad idea? It sure wasn't when the market was going up. Who knew guys would jump into the drivers seat and fly planes into buildings? Who knew that terrorists would hang out at a local gas station, shoot the driver and then drive it into the nearest school? Well, the last one has not happened, but it could but we are not locking that one down.

People trust experts over their own common sense? Tell that to a webdesigner. Oh wait, I a webdesigner, and I wish customers would listen to my expert advice from time to time. Maybe it's because I don't invoke my presumed authority. I give rational arguments. And you know how many people have trouble with reason, let alone common sense. Or are they the same thing?

It only makes sense

When you go to a doctor you trust his advise. You might get a second opinion, but you aren't going to spend a ton of time trying to figure out if he is wrong. Especially if the advise is "You need surgery NOW"

Same goes for lawyers. "I'm sorry but you don't have any chance of winning this in court, accept settlement" or "I'm sure we can win, lets fight this suit" you are most likely going to do it.

An expert is someone who you pay to know more than you about something specific and give you advice. If an expert gives bad advice regularly they will not be considered an expert anymore (lawyers disbarred, medical licenses revoked). I say there is nothing wrong with trusting the advise of experts, just be careful who you choose as your expert.

One Nobel Prize economist says what we are doing is right. Another Nobel Prize winner says it is exactly wrong. They both can't be right.

Again, it goes back to we know what we know when we know it. If you are driving down a road and your GPS tells you to go over a cliff, maybe there was a bridge when the GPS map was loaded in, but not now. Prudence would seem to tell you to trust what you know right now.

Expert advice

Right on, Michael! I was listening to "Dr. Laura" today (in my own defense, my wife had the station tuned in, and it took a few minutes to convince her to change it).
She had a case that was IDENTICAL to a situation involving my daughter some time ago, and, without delving into it deeply enough to understand the circumstances (again, IDENTICAL to the advice my daughter got!) she gave the standard Dr. Laura answer - the wife stays home and takes care of the child, the husband works and supports the family.
My daughter took that advice at first, and it almost destroyed her - then she came to her senses, and now she is doing GREAT, but she is still hostile to "expert" advice.

Libel for bloggers

It would be good to have guides for bloggers, but this isn't it.
First, it starts with:
"Precisely what, then, requires libel review? It is best to begin with a simplified definition of libel. A defamatory statement is a statement that is factual in character about
an identifiable entity or living individual that, if believed, would influence the reader’s or hearer’s opinion of the entity or individual, either by reflecting badly on the person’s character, or by harming the person’s reputation or diminishing the esteem, respect, or good will that he, she or it enjoys in a relevant community."
OOPS! The phrase "factual in character" seems to say facts are libelous - they can be, but only in very special circumstances. Here, we seem to be saying "not libelous is libelous" - nonsense!

It then uses the example of the Bush brothers "evading" military service, and says "truth is a defense" - PEOPLE! "evading" is NOT the same as "avoiding" - the statement would be libelous!

The organization seems to want to do the right thing. I could rewrite their pages for them, if they can't find someone capable of doing so.

Ask them if they want my help (free, of course, since it is a public service).